News Fron The US
Discussion
zaktoo said:
Because why should Bridgestone take a hit for Michelin's incomeptence? Why exactly do you want the Bridgestone runners to have to lower their speeds when in fact they can cope adequately with the course as it was originally laid out? What about the compromise to their race setup & preparation? Also, as Rusty has mentioned, what if a no-pointer decides to deliberately take out a pointer? I just need to understand why the desire to have the people who arrived to race well prepared punished along with the ill-prepared Michelin bunch?
Ciao
Zak
for one reason, and one reason only, so that 120,000 people don't get stiffed.
Yes it's michelins fault, but thats almost irrelevant, in that it's not the paying publics fault.
You can go round pointing the blame all the time in life, but it's only when the attitude becomes "how do we solve this" rather than "ooh their fault, their fault" do things ever get done.
If they had compromised in some way, at least the most important people in F1 (us) wouldn't have missed out.
Zak you are SO easy to wind up. 
Ironically the (Bridgestone sponsored) IRL have offered free seats at their next race to anyone with a USA GP ticket. Perhaps Michelin would be wise to offer to pay for a free seat to next years US GP for anyone with a ticket to this years. That would probably bring the biggest live audience for a GP ever as well as restoring some good faith.
I still find it amazing that Michelin are trying to avoid the blame. They brought the wrong tyre and didn't even bring the spare more durable set as they are mandated to by the regulations and yet somehow it is all the FIA and Ferrari's fault.
Incidentally, Lexsport I would add Ralf, Kimi, Webber, Alonso, Sato and DC to the list, they all seem to have a little trouble when the old red mist starts to rise and be prone to a little optimism when overtaking at the best of times. (Not that I have a problem with that)
I still find it amazing that Michelin are trying to avoid the blame. They brought the wrong tyre and didn't even bring the spare more durable set as they are mandated to by the regulations and yet somehow it is all the FIA and Ferrari's fault.
Incidentally, Lexsport I would add Ralf, Kimi, Webber, Alonso, Sato and DC to the list, they all seem to have a little trouble when the old red mist starts to rise and be prone to a little optimism when overtaking at the best of times. (Not that I have a problem with that)
I think that Woof's right - yet another opportunity for Max to get his own back on the GPWC boys - thing is, it may backfire - one (and possibly two) manufacturer backed team was close to pulling the plug on GPWC - both run on Michelins (obviously!) and both will know the full facts behind what happened this weekend. They have just experienced at first hand how inflexible and petty the FIA can be (although Charlie Whiting's comments do seem to be well founded and he is a respected man in the racing community).
I'm still waiting for Michelin to repeat a remark made abou the tyres that points to a manufacturing fault. The offical statement on their website sheds no further light on any of this.
I'm still waiting for Michelin to repeat a remark made abou the tyres that points to a manufacturing fault. The offical statement on their website sheds no further light on any of this.
LexSport said:Unfortunately that claim overlooks the Michelin tyre that was mislabeled at the factory and therefore mounted backwards on a McLaren about a month ago. As a result of the error, Wurz (IIRC) had a shunt at 150 mph.
Since our return to Forumla One we have not expereienced any tyre failures due to the design or manufacture of our tyres.
This was in the PDF attached to the FIA press release - talk about tempting fate.
Whilst it was a poor show, it has made for the most talked about race for years - and there's no such thing as bad publicity. It will be interesting to see the viewing figures for the next race.
I have to agree with most of Zaks comments though. Ferrari have been compromised for most of the season by their tyre performance. Both drivers have had to retire because their tyres had problems, whilst Michelin seemed to have the new rules cracked. Now the situation is reversed, why shouldn't they take advantage.
It seems that Michelins teams weren't prepared to make any compromise in performance in order to be safe and on that basis I think Ferrari were entirely justified in racing.
If the situation was the other way round there would only be three teams missing and nobody would be complaining (paticularly as one of them would be Ferrari and we know how much everyone seems to like to bash them).
This is a result of the FIA's rules and Michelins overly agressive selection of tyres and unwillingless to compromise performance for safety.
And yes Blundells shirt was criminal
>> Edited by turbosei on Monday 20th June 17:21
I have to agree with most of Zaks comments though. Ferrari have been compromised for most of the season by their tyre performance. Both drivers have had to retire because their tyres had problems, whilst Michelin seemed to have the new rules cracked. Now the situation is reversed, why shouldn't they take advantage.
It seems that Michelins teams weren't prepared to make any compromise in performance in order to be safe and on that basis I think Ferrari were entirely justified in racing.
If the situation was the other way round there would only be three teams missing and nobody would be complaining (paticularly as one of them would be Ferrari and we know how much everyone seems to like to bash them).
This is a result of the FIA's rules and Michelins overly agressive selection of tyres and unwillingless to compromise performance for safety.
And yes Blundells shirt was criminal
>> Edited by turbosei on Monday 20th June 17:21
FourWheelDrift said:Indeed, you would think that any decent person who had had the bad luck to be the spawn of the founders of the British Nazi Party would do everything possible to distance himself from the mentality and values of his parents, rather than seeming to emulate them.
The FIA are just a group of interferring nobodies who's prime concern seems to be to perpetuate their own feelings of absolute power. Something Max Mosely's father never had (Sir Oswald Mosely if you didn't know - look him up) but would be quite proud of the failed F2 drivers current position.
Is it not shocking that, as the debacle unfolded on Friday, Mosley did not make an emergency trip to Indy on one of his pals' private jets? Bad enough that the guy seems generally to avoid Grands Prix (apart from the one in Monaco, to which haven he apparently moved last year to secure some personal immunity from the law), but in this case surely there was a need for the Man Who Would Be King to show his face and try to sort things out.
Instead he climbs on his high horse this morning and blames others. No surprise there.
zaktoo said:
zaktoo said:
All that matters is that Ferrari have been wrongly accused of being unsporting and helping to throw away the name of F1 in the US, all of which is completely and utterly illogical. The only basis for such a view is blind hatred of Ferrari. So far, all attempts to justify that viewpoint from logical and legal standpoints have failed.
Have failed to convince you, with your monomaniacal blind worship of Ferrari, you mean.
it. I give up, I really do.
Zak, don't say you weren't warned........
XXX
MoJo.
the more I think about this, the more my opinions vary.
Yes Ferrari did what they were supposed to do (win races), BUT they are partly to blame for the farce which resulted.
Ferrari, over the past 9 years, have shown a total disregard for motorSPORT, but have given the world a lesson in the business of Formula One.
The FIA could have stamped their authority on the event, but instead chose to pander to Ferrari and Bridgestone and make Michelin out to be SOLELY responsible - they are merely chiefly responsible.
The FIA could have installed a chicane and made the entire race a non-championship race - no teams scoring any points.
This would have kept fans happy, both at the circuit and on TV, would have kept the PR teams happy, would have kept TV revenue high (teams still earning) and would have kept up the sporting aspect.
I suspect the racing would have also been far better in a 'go for broke' way especially if an engine change was allowed before France.
Instead we had Python-esque scenes and a tremendous amount of business dealing and sniping out in the open - if the race had been run non-points scoring the business dealings and 'bad PR' could have been kept secret.
Denis Jenkinson once commented (in the 80s I believe) "We are now squarely in the era of Formual One, Grand Prix is dead".
Yes Ferrari did what they were supposed to do (win races), BUT they are partly to blame for the farce which resulted.
Ferrari, over the past 9 years, have shown a total disregard for motorSPORT, but have given the world a lesson in the business of Formula One.
The FIA could have stamped their authority on the event, but instead chose to pander to Ferrari and Bridgestone and make Michelin out to be SOLELY responsible - they are merely chiefly responsible.
The FIA could have installed a chicane and made the entire race a non-championship race - no teams scoring any points.
This would have kept fans happy, both at the circuit and on TV, would have kept the PR teams happy, would have kept TV revenue high (teams still earning) and would have kept up the sporting aspect.
I suspect the racing would have also been far better in a 'go for broke' way especially if an engine change was allowed before France.
Instead we had Python-esque scenes and a tremendous amount of business dealing and sniping out in the open - if the race had been run non-points scoring the business dealings and 'bad PR' could have been kept secret.
Denis Jenkinson once commented (in the 80s I believe) "We are now squarely in the era of Formual One, Grand Prix is dead".
tuscan_thunder said:Now that's an interesting point - I guess this counts as a full race as part of the two race engine rule. Was this the first race of two for any of the teams? Will anyone kick up a stink that these engines haven't effectively done a full race and so they will have an unfair advantage of a fresher engine at the next race than if they'd run at Indy?
...especially if an engine change was allowed before France.
Joe911 said:
And yes Brundles shirt was criminal
Actually it was Blundell with the dodgy shirt wasn't it?
And according to my wife (fashion police commander in chief) the trousers were a major offence too.
He's been hired as the end of transmission ITV colour testcard, with Jim Rosenthal providing the whitenoise.
tuscan_thunder said:
the more I think about this, the more my opinions vary.
Yes Ferrari did what they were supposed to do (win races), BUT they are partly to blame for the farce which resulted.
Ferrari, over the past 9 years, have shown a total disregard for motorSPORT, but have given the world a lesson in the business of Formula One.
The FIA could have stamped their authority on the event, but instead chose to pander to Ferrari and Bridgestone and make Michelin out to be SOLELY responsible - they are merely chiefly responsible.
The FIA could have installed a chicane and made the entire race a non-championship race - no teams scoring any points.
This would have kept fans happy, both at the circuit and on TV, would have kept the PR teams happy, would have kept TV revenue high (teams still earning) and would have kept up the sporting aspect.
I suspect the racing would have also been far better in a 'go for broke' way especially if an engine change was allowed before France.
Instead we had Python-esque scenes and a tremendous amount of business dealing and sniping out in the open - if the race had been run non-points scoring the business dealings and 'bad PR' could have been kept secret.
Denis Jenkinson once commented (in the 80s I believe) "We are now squarely in the era of Formula One, Grand Prix is dead".
As stated above, this would have been the best compromise all round.
However with the perilous state of the "politics" in F1 just now the crisis was seen by some as a way of imposing the FIA "will" on those dissident teams.
What actually came to pass was, I believe, the start of the demise which will eventually lead to the total end of F1 as we have known it for all these years. Maybe even the FIA as well.
MoJo
LexSport said:
Now that's an interesting point - I guess this counts as a full race as part of the two race engine rule. Was this the first race of two for any of the teams? Will anyone kick up a stink that these engines haven't effectively done a full race and so they will have an unfair advantage of a fresher engine at the next race than if they'd run at Indy?
I doubt that the Ferrari's were at full revs for much of the race. I can't imagine that any of the threee teams that raced on Sunday would be prepared to claim that they have been unfairly disadvantaged. If they did Brundle may have to extend his 'list of people i neded to go and punch'.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff